Supreme Court Slams Trump’s Tariff Plan: Statute Clearly Bars Presidential Action

Legal analyst Thane Rosenbaum said Saturday that the Supreme Court’s rejection of President Donald Trump’s IEEPA tariffs turned on a straight reading of statutory text, with textualists concluding “we don’t see an emergency here” and treating tariffs as taxes—a power reserved for Congress.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Friday that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.

Rosenbaum said the decision was straightforward from the majority’s perspective, noting that the justices focused on the words Congress used. “Look, cases are simple from the majority opinion,” he stated. “The president was relying on a statute that used words like emergency and tariffs.”

“The textualists on the courts are saying, no, no, our job is to read the law, and we don’t see an emergency here,” Rosenbaum added.

Rosenbaum described the majority’s analysis as a statutory mismatch, explaining: “The statute says regulating imports, and you’re imposing tariffs.” He also clarified that “tariffs are not the same thing as imports.”

He then pushed the argument toward constitutional principles, stating: “Taxes are tariffs and taxes are the province of Congress.” Rosenbaum added for the court, “We really can’t let you do this.”

When asked about how the justices reached their conclusion, Rosenbaum said: “This is unconstitutional because you’re relying on a statute that points to a number of things that must be present in order for you to use it. And they’re not actually present here.” He summarized the ruling as “really simply what the court ruled.”

An estimate from Penn Wharton indicates that more than $175 billion in U.S. revenue could be subject to refunds.

The Supreme Court did not address the mechanics of potential refunds, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in dissent: “The United States may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers who paid the IEEPA tariffs.”